JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the following reliefs : “(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing revisional order No. 199/132-135/2014 dated 4.1.2018 served on 18.1.2018 passed by the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 7); (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. to adjudicate the 4 revisions of the petitioner on merits.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company which is registered under the provision of Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is manufacturer of excisable goods namely Tyres and Tyres Tubes. The aforesaid items falls under Chapter Heading 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985, hereinafter referred as ‘Tarrif Act’. 4. There are two plants/units which are indulged in manufacturing of the aforesaid goods. One plant is located at Modipuram and another at Paratpur, both in District Meerut, U.P. 5. According to the petitioner the tyres are manufactured in Modipuram plant whereas the tubes are manufactured at Paratpur plant. The product of the petitioner company is being sold both in domestic market as also exported. The exports of the final products are being made from Modipuram plant only. 6. The petitioner company has claimed certain rebates totalling a sum of Rs. 9,56,789/- under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, hereinafter referred as ‘The Act’. 7. When the petitioner has filed four rebate claims application a show-cause notice dated 23.4.2013 has been issued by the respondent No. 1 by which the respondent No. 1 has asked the petitioner to show-cause as to why the said refund which has been claimed should not be rejected on the following grounds : “(i) As per condition No. 2a of Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004, the excisable goods shall be exported after payment of duty, directly from the factory or warehouse, except as otherwise permitted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs by General of special order”. The applicant, in the instant case, has not exported the goods in question from the place of its manufacture. The applicant, in the instant case, has not exported the goods in question from the place of its manufacture. (ii) The invoice issued under Rule 11 of CER, 2002 has not been produced. (iii) Rule 18 of the CER, 2002 provides for the grant of rebate of duty paid of excisable goods if exported outside India. The goods on which rebate is claimed were in fact, part of the goods, which were exported under bond, under Rule 19, without payment of duty, and on which the question of rebate of duty does not arise. The goods acquired from their sister unit have been shown to be exported under Rule 19 and not under Rule 18 ibid. Therefore, recourse to Rule 18 for claiming rebate on any part of the consignment does not appear to be admissible.” (iv) The goods including bought out tubes have been exported in discharge of export obligation of Advance Authorization issued under Notification No. 96/2009-Cus Dated 11.9.2009 though Condition No. (viii) of the notification Dated 11.9.2009 stipulates “that export obligation as specified in the said authorization (both in value and quantity terms) is discharged within the period specified in the said authorization or within such extended period as may be granted by the Regional Authority by exporting resultant products, manufactured in India which are specified in the said authorization and in respect of which facility under Rule 18 (rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of resultant product) or sub-rule (2) of the Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been availed.” 8. The petitioner filed the detailed reply, to the show-cause notice dated 23.4.2013, on 20.6.2013. The reply which has been filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.7.2013, for the reason which were elaborately mentioned in order-in-original Nos. R-18 to 21/AC/DMRT/2013-14 dated 12.7.2013. 9. The adjudicating authority has recorded the following finding while rejecting the rebate claims of the petitioner company vide order dated 27.7.2013 : “I have gone through the Rebate Claim filed by the party with all the relevant documents submitted therewith and available records. R-18 to 21/AC/DMRT/2013-14 dated 12.7.2013. 9. The adjudicating authority has recorded the following finding while rejecting the rebate claims of the petitioner company vide order dated 27.7.2013 : “I have gone through the Rebate Claim filed by the party with all the relevant documents submitted therewith and available records. I find that all the four rebate Claims were filed under Rule 18 and 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the goods i.e.’Automobile Tyres’ Tubes & Flaps’ were exported by them on payment of Central Excise Duty. In both the cases, the issue of exporting goods directly from the manufacturing unit/warehouse could not be compared with the present case, as the claimant is a registered manufacurer and having two different manufacturing units for two different goods. In view of the above, I find that the four Rebate Claims for Rs. 2,28,416/-, Rs. 2,26,321/-, Rs. 2,30,197/- & Rs. 2,71,855/- [Total amount to Rs. 9,56,789/-] are not admissible to the claimant.” 10. Against the order dated 12.7.2013 four separate appeals are filed by the petitioner by which the order passed in-original dated 12.7.2013 are challenged. The said appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Meerut-I. 11. The appeals filed by the petitioner are registered being order Nos. 157-160-CE/APPL/MRT-1/2013. 12. The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Meerut-I, has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12.7.2013 vide his order dated 9.12.2013 and therefore all the four appeals are rejected. 13. Against the order dated 9.12.2013 four revision applications under Section 35EE of Act, 1944 were filed. 14. Section 35EE provides the power to the Central Government to revise the order which is passed under Section 35A, where the order is of the nature referred to in the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 35B, annul or modify such order. 15. Proviso of sub-Section 1 of Section 35EE provides that the Central Government may in its discretion, refuse to admit an application in respect of an order where the amount of duty or fine or penalty, determined by such order does not exceed five thousand rupees. 16. 15. Proviso of sub-Section 1 of Section 35EE provides that the Central Government may in its discretion, refuse to admit an application in respect of an order where the amount of duty or fine or penalty, determined by such order does not exceed five thousand rupees. 16. Explanation to Section 35EE of the Act provides as follows : “Explanation—For the purposes of this sub-section, “order passed under Section 35A” includes an order passed under that section before the commencement of Section 47 of the finance Act, 1984 against which an appeal has not been preferred before such commencement and could have been, if the said section had not come into force, preferred after such commencement, to the Appellate Tribunal. (1A) The [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise] may, if he is of the opinion that an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A is not legal or proper, direct the proper officer to make an application on his behalf to the Central Government for revision of such order.” 17. Sub-clause 2 of ‘explanation’ provides that an application under sub-Section (1) shall be made within three months from the date of communication of the order to the application of the order against which the application is being made. 18. Proviso of Sub-Section (2) of explanation of Section 35EE provides that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. 19. Sub-Section (3) of explanation to Section 35EE provides that an application under sub-Section (1) shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf and shall be accompanied by a fee of,- (a) two hundred rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case to which the application relates is one lakh rupees or less; (b) one thousand rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case to which the application relates is more than one lakh rupees. 20. 20. Proviso of Sub-Section (3) of explanation to Section 35EE provides that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an application referred to in sub-section (1-A). 21. In the instant case the petitioner has filed four revision applications under Section 35EE against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.12.2013, before the respondent No. 2 namely the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi on 13.5.2014. The petitioner while filing four revision applications mistakenly deposited the payment of Rs. 200/- each. The said payment was made by the petitioner company in favour of the respondent authority through E-payment. 22. A notice has been issued by the office of the respondent No. 2 dated 2.6.2014 by which the office of the respondent No. 2 has acknowledged the receipts of four revision applications which are filed by the petitioner against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.12.2013, however, in the said notice the office of the respondent No. 2 (Section Officer -RA) has pointed out that there is short fall in depositing the requisite fee in all the appeals to the extent of Rs. 800/- each. By said notice dated 2.6.2014 the office of the respondent No. 2 has informed the petitioner that the applications/revisions stands personally accepted and are registered vide file reference No. 195/132-135/14-RACY and it is further clarified that the said reference number should invariably be quoted while corresponding in future. In para 2 of the said notice it is mentioned that the registration can be made final only on the submission by the petitioner the following documents within a period of 15 days of receipt of the letter dated 2.6.2014, failing which the revisions shall be dismissed as not maintainable without any further reference. 23. In the said notice after para 2 at serial No. 1 it has been mentioned that the petitioner is required to deposit further Rs. 800/- more for each revisions. 24. For the convenience true photo copy of the notice dated 2.6.2014 is produced hereinbelow : IMAGE 25. Based and in compliance of the instructions issued vide notice dated 2.6.2014, the petitioner vide covering letter dated 20.6.2014 had deposited TR-6 Challan Nos. 00054, 00055, 00056 & 00058 all dated 19.6.2014 of Rs. 800/- each with the State Bank of India. 26. For the convenience true photo copy of the notice dated 2.6.2014 is produced hereinbelow : IMAGE 25. Based and in compliance of the instructions issued vide notice dated 2.6.2014, the petitioner vide covering letter dated 20.6.2014 had deposited TR-6 Challan Nos. 00054, 00055, 00056 & 00058 all dated 19.6.2014 of Rs. 800/- each with the State Bank of India. 26. The petitioner was under the impression that all requirement are fulfilled by him in pursuance of the notice dated 2.6.2014, by furnishing the fresh challans as desired by the respondent No. 2. 27. The petitioner however was surprised when the impugned order Nos. 195/132-135/2014 dated 4.1.2018 are received by him by which the respondent No. 2 has rejected all the four revision applications solely on the ground that since the petitioner has deposited the fee of Rs. 800/- for each application on 19.6.2014, thus the required fee of Rs. 1000/- in each case is finally paid on 19.6.2014 which is time barred. The respondent No. 2 in para 4 of his impugned order, rejecting the revision applications, has observed as follows : “As per Sub-section 3 of Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944, a revision application is to be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 1000/- when the amount of duty etc. levied by any Central Excise Officer is more than Rs. 1.00 lakh. This requirement of payment of fee before or at the time of filing the application is mandatory and no relaxation in this regard is provided under the aforesaid provision or any other Section. Thus if any application is not accompanied by the sepcified fee, such application cannot be considered as properly filed by the Government by virtue of the above mentioned provision. In the instant case, while the revision application was filed with the Government on 13.5.2014, the fee of Rs. 800/- has been paid only on 19.6.2014. Consequently, this application cannot be considered as a proper revision application until fee was paid on 19.6.2014. Finally the proper revision application in this case can be considered to have been filed only on 19.6.2014 by which date this application is time barred as a revision application can be filed only within 3 months from the date of communication of the Commissioner (Appeals) order as per Sub-section 2 of Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 which was received in this case on 19.2.2014.” 28. From the bare perusal of the findings recorded and conclusion drawn by the respondent No. 2 it is clear that respondent No. 2 has proceeded to apply the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 35EE of the Act which contemplates and requires that a revision application ought to have been accompanied by a fees of Rs. 1000/- when the amount of duty, interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by any of the authority in the case to which the application relates is more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. 29. In the instant case, we noticed that it is not a case where the amount of duty and interest is demanded or fine and penalty is levied as such in the instant case the petitioner has claimed the rebate of excise duty. There is no dispute that the requirement of payment of fee before or at the time of filing of revision application is mandatory but in the instant case, we find that the appeals were filed before the respondent No. 2 on 13.5.2014 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.12.2013, the deficiency of the amount has been cleared as soon as the petitioner has received the notice dated 2.6.2014. The entire fee has been paid on 19.6.2014 i.e. within a period of 16 days. Whereas in para 2 of the notice dated 2.6.2014 the petitioner was required to complete the deficiency within a period of 15 days of receipt of the notice dated 2.6.2014. 30. We are surprised that this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the respondent No. 2 that the office of the respondent No. 2 itself has allowed the grace period of 15 days vide its notice dated 2.6.2014 to fulfil the condition by making the short payment of Rs. 800/- each for entertainment of the pending revision applications. The respondent No. 2 in fact has taken a date of filing of the revision applications namely on 13.5.2014 while calculating the grace period which has been allowed to the petitioner by notice dated 2.6.2014 for a period of further 15 days. 31. We have noticed that there appears a delay of one or maximum of two days in compliance of the directions so issued by the office of the respondent No. 2 while issuing the notice dated 2.6.2014. 32. 31. We have noticed that there appears a delay of one or maximum of two days in compliance of the directions so issued by the office of the respondent No. 2 while issuing the notice dated 2.6.2014. 32. There is no pleading nor there are any details available which show the date of receiving of the notice. We presumed that even if the notice is received in a date or two from the date of issuance, then in that event it would be earliest either on 3rd or on 4th June, 2014, whereas the fee was paid/deposited on 19.6.2014. 33. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons given herein above and in view of peculiar facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the revision applications of the petitioner are rejected on the ground of laches. We further hold that the order impugned has been passed by the respondent No. 2 after a gap of more than about three and half years from the date of filing of the appeal and while passing the said order the respondent No. 2 has not looked into the contends of the notice dated 2.6.2014 which clearly stipulates a marginal period allowed to the petitioner to pay the short fee, for each of the revision applications @ Rs. 800/- within a period of 15 days. 34. In the notice it is categorically and clearly mentioned that the registration can only be made finally on submitting the documents (in the instant case TR-6 Challan) showing the deposit of Rs. 800/- for each revision applications. 35. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find the substance in the submission of the petitioner and further that the respondent No. 4 though has categorically recorded a finding that the personal hearing was held on 11.12.2017 in which the counsel for the revisionists appeared and participated, therefore, there was no justification in passing the impugned order on 4.1.2018 i.e. after about more than three weeks from the date of hearing. 36. In any view of the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law, hence, the same is set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to hear all the four revision applications on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. 37. The writ petition is allowed. 36. In any view of the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law, hence, the same is set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to hear all the four revision applications on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. 37. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.